democracy in america-1-第75节
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
In the United States political questions cannot be taken up in so general and absolute a manner； and all parties are willing to recognize the right of the majority； because they all hope to turn those rights to their own advantage at some future time。 The majority therefore in that country exercises a prodigious actual authority； and a moral influence which is scarcely less preponderant； no obstacles exist which can impede or so much as retard its progress； or which can induce it to heed the complaints of those whom it crushes upon its path。 This state of things is fatal in itself and dangerous for the future。
How The Unlimited Power Of The Majority Increases In America The Instability Of Legislation And Administration Inherent In Democracy The Americans increase the mutability of the laws which is inherent in democracy by changing the legislature every year； and by investing it with unbounded authority … The same effect is produced upon the administration … In America social amelioration is conducted more energetically but less perseveringly than in Europe。
I have already spoken of the natural defects of democratic institutions； and they all of them increase at the exact ratio of the power of the majority。 To begin with the most evident of them all； the mutability of the laws is an evil inherent in democratic government； because it is natural to democracies to raise men to power in very rapid succession。 But this evil is more or less sensible in proportion to the authority and the means of action which the legislature possesses。
In America the authority exercised by the legislative bodies is supreme； nothing prevents them from accomplishing their wishes with celerity； and with irresistible power； whilst they are supplied by new representatives every year。 That is to say； the circumstances which contribute most powerfully to democratic instability； and which admit of the free application of caprice to every object in the State； are here in full operation。 In conformity with this principle； America is； at the present day； the country in the world where laws last the shortest time。 Almost all the American constitutions have been amended within the course of thirty years： there is therefore not a single American State which has not modified the principles of its legislation in that lapse of time。 As for the laws themselves； a single glance upon the archives of the different States of the Union suffices to convince one that in America the activity of the legislator never slackens。 Not that the American democracy is naturally less stable than any other； but that it is allowed to follow its capricious propensities in the formation of the laws。 *b
＇Footnote b： The legislative acts promulgated by the State of Massachusetts alone； from the year 1780 to the present time； already fill three stout volumes； and it must not be forgotten that the collection to which I allude was published in 1823； when many old laws which had fallen into disuse were omitted。 The State of Massachusetts； which is not more populous than a department of France； may be considered as the most stable； the most consistent； and the most sagacious in its undertakings of the whole Union。＇
The omnipotence of the majority； and the rapid as well as absolute manner in which its decisions are executed in the United States； has not only the effect of rendering the law unstable； but it exercises the same influence upon the execution of the law and the conduct of the public administration。 As the majority is the only power which it is important to court； all its projects are taken up with the greatest ardor； but no sooner is its attention distracted than all this ardor ceases； whilst in the free States of Europe the administration is at once independent and secure； so that the projects of the legislature are put into execution； although its immediate attention may be directed to other objects。
In America certain ameliorations are undertaken with much more zeal and activity than elsewhere； in Europe the same ends are promoted by much less social effort； more continuously applied。
Some years ago several pious individuals undertook to ameliorate the condition of the prisons。 The public was excited by the statements which they put forward； and the regeneration of criminals became a very popular undertaking。 New prisons were built； and for the first time the idea of reforming as well as of punishing the delinquent formed a part of prison discipline。 But this happy alteration； in which the public had taken so hearty an interest； and which the exertions of the citizens had irresistibly accelerated； could not be completed in a moment。 Whilst the new penitentiaries were being erected （and it was the pleasure of the majority that they should be terminated with all possible celerity）； the old prisons existed； which still contained a great number of offenders。 These jails became more unwholesome and more corrupt in proportion as the new establishments were beautified and improved； forming a contrast which may readily be understood。 The majority was so eagerly employed in founding the new prisons that those which already existed were forgotten； and as the general attention was diverted to a novel object； the care which had hitherto been bestowed upon the others ceased。 The salutary regulations of discipline were first relaxed； and afterwards broken； so that in the immediate neighborhood of a prison which bore witness to the mild and enlightened spirit of our time； dungeons might be met with which reminded the visitor of the barbarity of the Middle Ages。
Chapter XV： Unlimited Power Of Majority； And Its Consequences … Part II
Tyranny Of The Majority
How the principle of the sovereignty of the people is to be understood …Impossibility of conceiving a mixed government … The sovereign power must centre somewhere … Precautions to be taken to control its action … These precautions have not been taken in the United States … Consequences。
I hold it to be an impious and an execrable maxim that； politically speaking； a people has a right to do whatsoever it pleases； and yet I have asserted that all authority originates in the will of the majority。 Am I then； in contradiction with myself？
A general law … which bears the name of Justice … has been made and sanctioned； not only by a majority of this or that people； but by a majority of mankind。 The rights of every people are consequently confined within the limits of what is just。 A nation may be considered in the light of a jury which is empowered to represent society at large； and to apply the great and general law of justice。 Ought such a jury； which represents society； to have more power than the society in which the laws it applies originate？
When I refuse to obey an unjust law； I do not contest the right which the majority has of commanding； but I simply appeal from the sovereignty of the people to the sovereignty of mankind。 It has been asserted that a people can never entirely outstep the boundaries of justice and of reason in those affairs which are more peculiarly its own； and that consequently； full power may fearlessly be given to the majority by which it is represented。 But this language is that of a slave。
A majority taken collectively may be regarded as a being whose opinions； and most frequently whose interests； are opposed to those of another being； which is styled a minority。 If it be admitted that a man； possessing absolute power； may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries； why should a majority not be liable to the same reproach？ Men are not apt to change their characters by agglomeration； nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with the consciousness of their strength。 *c And for these reasons I can never willingly invest any number of my fellow… creatures with that unlimited authority which I should refuse to any one of them。
＇Footnote c： No one will assert that a people cannot forcibly wrong another people； but parties may be looked upon as lesser nations within a greater one； and they are aliens to each other： if； therefore； it be admitted that a nation can act tyrannically towards another nation； it cannot be denied that a party may do the same towards another party。＇
I do not think that it is possible to combine several principles in the same government； so as at the same time to maintain freedom； and really to oppose them to one another。 The form of government which is usually termed mixed has always appeared to me to be a mere chimera。 Accurately speaking there is no such thing as a mixed government （with the meaning usually given to that word）； because in all communities some one principle of action may be discovered which preponderates over the others。 England in the last century； which has been more especially cited as an example of this form of Government； was in point of fact an essentially aristocratic State； although it comprised very powerful elements of democracy； for the laws and customs of the country were such that the aristocracy could not but preponderate in the end； and subject the direction of public affairs to its own will。 The error arose from too much attention being paid to the actual struggle which was go
